I was just wandering if these two type of approaches look different to the eye:
- grain added in post production (using the Spirit)
- or grain that comes from the film stock (i.e. underexposing on a fast film stock)
I understand the philosophy behind both working methods, but am curious how they stand up against eachother
grain in camera, or grain in post
1 reply to this topic
Posted 22 January 2007 - 04:22 PM
There's definitely a different look between real grain and adding it using a filter. Grain via stock and processing looks orgainc, for lack of a better term. You're seeing a real photochemical reaction based on your shooting conditions, and the grain reacts accordingly. Adding grain digitally, I've found, looks very artificial due to its uniformity, as well as being independent of exposure and processing (for example: adding lots of grain to a slow or normal stock thats properly exposed/not pushed seems fake to my eye). Plus, lets say that you have noticeable grain in your negative, then you add more grain later digitally. The new grain will not interact with the image the way the original grain does, and this might look quite funky (funky good or funky bad -- that's your call!). If the product will only be seen on TV or DVD, you might be able to get away with it. Projected... probably best to do it the real way. It's a good idea to always test, and see what works for your aesthetic.